Mary Midgleys Moral Isolationism - Essay Example

Mary Midgley’s Moral Isolationism Introduction When an outsider criticizes a particular country or culture, most often than not, those who have beencriticized would shout out in indignation for the outsiders to show some respect for things that they do not understand. They will usually say that those who do not understand their culture do not have a right to make criticisms about them. They need to learn how to respect other cultures; and by this, they mean that one can only make judgments about his or her own culture because that is what he or she has a clear understanding of. According to Mary Midgley, this is what moral isolationism is as it involves “the familiar position that respect and tolerance demand that members of one culture not criticize other cultures” (34). To put it simply, because an outsider cannot understand other cultures, he or she does not have the right to make judgments about other cultures. Midgley disapproves of this stance as it creates a moral vacuum that tends to hinder one’s critical thinking faculties, “man’s main evolutionary asset” (36). Furthermore, moral isolationism is just another form of immoralism as it leans towards moral skepticism and the relativism of moral and ethical truths as it “lay[s] down a general ban on moral reasoning” (36). Midgley’s Argument Midgley’s argument against moral isolationism is five-fold. First, she presents the contradiction that moral isolationists demonstrate when they ask an outsider to show some respect and stop making judgments of other cultures because they simply cannot understand them due to the fact that they are foreigners. Midgley argues that “nobody can respect what is entirely unintelligible to them” (35). This poses the question that “if morals are applicable and legitimate only to one’s own culture as he or she cannot understand cultures other than his or her own, then how can one appropriately respect and tolerate cultures that he or she is not a member of?” Furthermore, it is a known fact that people has the capacity to understand other people, be they from different countries. And because cultures are made up of the people that create them and make them unique from others, how then can people not have the faculties to understand and respect other cultures; and consequently, to make favorable judgments on these different cultures? Midgley’s second argument arises from the fact that throughout history, intelligent outsiders—anthropologists are a very good example—have made sense out of past civilizations and cultures that they were not members of. Because of their skills, they were able to make critical judgments that have served to create new knowledge regarding different cultures. If this was possible, would it not then be also possible for ordinary people to make judgments of cultures other than their own based on their observations and experience? Does the isolating barrier that being an outsider or not prevent one from forming criticisms of other cultures on both sides? “Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us?” (35). This then leads to Midgley’s third question of whether the isolating barrier prevent outsiders from making both positive and negative criticisms (35). It is a known fact that praises are most welcome when it is given and usually, people do not question if the person giving the positive criticism is an outsider or not, whether he or she understands their culture or not. In this case then, the isolating barrier becomes null when it comes to praises, which then negates moral isolationism as praise is just positive criticism. Midgley notes that praise and blame constitute the same thing—and that is, in order for one to be able to praise or criticize something, one must first be able to weigh the pros and cons accordingly as how can one know the positive if not compared to the negative? In this sense, Midgley poses her next question and argument: “What is involved in judging?” (35). Here, she points out a significant difference between making crude judgments and making intelligent criticisms based on knowledge and experience. It is logical to object to crude judgments, however, moral isolationists prohibit any and all kinds of judgment. This is all based on the premise that outsiders do not understand other cultures and so, they should respect them by not forming any kind of opinion. But then, people do not completely understand their own cultures. Does this mean that they are also incapable of judging their own cultures? If we cant judge other cultures, can we really judge our own? Our efforts to do so will be much damaged if we are really deprived of our opinions about other societies, because these provide the range of comparison, the spectrum of alternatives against which we set what we want to understand (36). This is Midgley’s last and most logical argument. If people cannot evaluate other cultures, it would not be possible for cultures to merge and evolve. It would stun growth in all aspects—knowledge, morality, and ethics. It would even kill the chances for people to gain expertise on certain fields as how would one know he or she is an expert if there is no point of comparison? Furthermore, people live within a mixture of cultures—this is what history, interrelationship and communications have made inevitable. It can be seen from this detailed synthesis of Midgley’s argument against moral isolationism that it is not only impossible, but were it to become a reality, it would be detrimental to the process of evolution and development of societies as it involves the immobilization of moral judgment. Objections against Midgley’s Argument Although Midgley laid down her argument against moral isolationism in a rather logical manner that the reader cannot help but nod in agreement, some would still say that she was extreme in her conclusions against moral isolationism in her statement that it lays down a ban on moral reasoning and moral judgment. Can people not create judgments within one’s own culture and society and still be able to produce morally sensible and sound criticisms? In negating moral isolationism altogether, it seems that she is making the mistake of moral isolationists in creating isolating barriers for moral reasoning and development. Here, she is stating that if moral isolationism exists, then moral judgments are not possible both within and outside cultures as forming constructive moral opinions within one’s own culture is also impossible given that one cannot fully understand one’s own culture. She contradicts one of her arguments here as she also stated that learning about and from strangers is a process that cannot be completed immediately and partial knowledge may be enough for some to be able to create valid judgments between good and bad. If this is so, would it not be possible, then, for members of a community to be able to form moral judgments about their culture and about each other even if they do not completely understand their own culture? It is apparent then, that Midgley has created an isolating barrier of her own by totally negating the fact that it is possible for a society to be able to form practical and constructive moral judgments within their own culture, while not forming judgments about other cultures. It is as if she has limited one’s choices—one should be able to do both or none at all. Furthermore, her belief that moral isolationism prevents one to judge other cultures and hence, inhibits societal and moral development due to the lack of alternatives—the comparison against other cultures—can also be put into question. Does this mean that totally isolated tribes did not evolve at all? Were the members of the tribe so barbaric that they do not have an internal sens of what is right and wrong? Can they not form the concept that killing is bad on their own and without the help of having outside comparisons? Certainly, they can exercise the concept of asking “what if” and use their imaginations to create alternatives that they can base their moral reasoning on. Here, it would seem that the objections against Midgley’s argument may have a point as isolated communities, no matter how slowly, are still able to exhibit moral reasoning that will aid in their progress. Thus, moral isolationism, through its supposed obstruction of other alternatives, completely stuns the growth of completely isolated cultures and communities. Midgley’s Answer to the Counter-Arguments Midgley stated that “if we accept something as a serious moral truth about one culture, we cant refuse to apply it—in however different an outward form—to other cultures as well, wherever circumstances admit it” (36). This shows that even though Midgley’s conclusions may be extreme in that moral isolationism prevents all kinds of moral judgment, the phrase “wherever circumstances admit it” includes forming moral judgments within one’s own culture, as well as others. Furthermore, she only stated that not being able to judge other societies will only damage one’s own effort to judge his or her own culture. She did not explicitly negate the possibility that an isolated culture cannot form moral reasoning that can contribute to that community’s progress. Development might be slowed down and be “much damaged,” but Midgley is not totally discounting its possibility and reality (36). She is simply establishing the strength of her argument by showing how it would be if people cannot make judgments of other cultures. Also, Midgley’s position is not an all-or-nothing stance as what she wanted to be clear about is that both—creating moral judgments about one’s own culture and other cultures—are possible and are not independent of each other. The former can happen without the latter, although forming judgments about one’s own culture can be better helped by forming criticisms about other cultures, whether positive or negative. Midgley explained that “anthropologists were able to interpret what they saw and make judgments—often favorable—about the [isolated] tribesmen” (37). If this is so, would it not mean that these tribesmen were able to make moral judgments within their culture and community that made the anthropologists create positive opinions of them? Midgley recognized this fact and this is why she included it as an example. Hence, Midgley accepts that moral and constructive judgments within an isolated community can be made by its members. However, the state of complete isolation may not consistently remain so as cultures are bound to meet other cultures at one point in time. Thus the development of cultures cannot remain pure and unmixed for all time; and, consequently, moral isolationism becomes a thing of the past. Conclusion “Morally as well as physically, there is only one world; and we all have to live in it” (37). This fact is a testament to the inevitability of interaction between cultures. In one way or another, whether through “tourists and Coca Cola salesmen” or “anthropologists,” isolated cultures will not be completely isolated for long. Isolating barriers, no matter who theoretically created them, are broken down in time. Hence, it is inevitable for people from different cultures to intermingle and create judgments based on their knowledge and experience. Being able to form opinions of other cultures only serves to enhance one’s capabilities of being able to exercise moral reasoning about one’s own culture. Hence, criticizing others’ cultures and one’s own are two correlated acts as the former serves to improve the latter. Read More